Mevoelo
Deletion discussion about Unique Kings Obi
editHello Mevoelo, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Unique Kings Obi, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique Kings Obi.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Scooby Nero (May 17)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scooby Nero and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Mevoelo!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
- Hello, I have been able to find some unreliable sources I didn’t take not of earlier. Would you mind reviewing the article again when all issues are fixed? Mevoelo (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just for the record that I replied on my talk page. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Dapper Damm
edit
Hello, Mevoelo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Dapper Damm".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Speedy deletion nomination of Ola Cardoso
editHello Mevoelo,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ola Cardoso for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Ola Cardoso to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
harrz talk 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I mistakenly had it moved to draft while trying to make some edits. Kindly hold on so I can have it sorted. Mevoelo (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Ola Cardoso has been accepted
edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Women in Red August 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Concern regarding Draft:Flourish Peters
edit
Hello, Mevoelo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Flourish Peters, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
July 2024
editHello, I was doing some patrol on newly accepted drafts and decided to do some copyedits on Ola Cardoso. I noticed that the statements there were not cited nor supported by the inline citations. I’ll be bold to remove them while you take a closer look at the sources once more. Best, Reading Beans 08:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Many thanks for your edits. That information was actually sourced from an interview I watched on YouTube, and I thought a suitable citation was added to it. It’s okay for that information to be removed as there’s no other mention of it in other reliable sources.
- Cheers! Mevoelo (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Flourish Peters
edit Hello, Mevoelo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Flourish Peters".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Unverified information in BLP
editHello, I see you reverted my edit (here) and sourced the statements I had previously removed but the source failed to mention the other movies you cited with Breath of Life. Seeing that this is the second time I’ve removed an unverified information in a BLP you created. Do I need to go through all of your creations to make sure they verify the information’s you added? Also, is this an undisclosed paid editing? If yes, you have to disclose so using the {{paid}} template. Best, Reading Beans 09:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I believe you did not properly do a thorough check before removing the said edit. You can check here to verify under the soundtrack section. I didn’t just revert the edit, I added a citation to it to clarify the information. You removed the information about an ”album” which was well sourced (hereand here). I find it offensive that you imply abruptly and wrongly before seeking clarification. Also, I’m wondering why you went ahead to take off the whole paragraph if just one line needed extra citation. I think that was too bash and forward. You made a mistake yourself and should admit it. I am not a perfect editor. I’m always willing to learn and will accept when I make oversights or errors. You have also made mistakes like this and you were corrected. How would it have felt if false statements about your editing were made? I believe you need to work on the way you communicate with others especially when pointing out a mistake. Thank you! Mevoelo (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, I did a thorough check and I’m talking about this edit I did. I can’t go to another page to verify a statement made in a BLP. You are responsible for every statement and information you add to the encyclopaedia (see WP:BURDEN). Having said that, please, source every statement you add and don’t assume that an editor should go to another page to verify a statement.
- Yhe citation you add from Premium Times didn’t mention the other movies you added there. Where did I remove the “album”? And what are those two sources verifying? Also, the source from Pulse which listed 336 albums does not contribute to notability and I’m not so sure about the reliability of UpperEnt, but that’s by the way.
- I removed the few lines and reworded the article because some informations there failed verification. I repeating it because it seems like you did not understand what I wrote at the beginning of this thread. I’m sorry if my tone comes off a bit harsh but one of the problems of texting—tone depends on our interpretations.
- You didn’t answer my question about this being a case of UPE. It’s fine if you don’t want to answer, it’s just a question made in good faith. Best, Reading Beans 16:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Accept your mistake please. The rewording on the Breathe of life part was not done initially. The first removal you made was to the entire paragraph and the following paragraph which is the part about the album For You Knew Me. (Note: It was sourced in the discography section). I genuinely thought you made a mistake and restored the edit. I added a reference to verify the breathe of life movie. Does that not count at the very least? I didn’t take note of the second movie ‘Something more than gold’. I admit this is also a slight oversight on my own part. The fact that I could make reference to most of the information means that a huge effort was made to verify. But you didn’t sound like any effort was made. Instead you sounded like I went straight ahead to just restore the edit. That asides…what was the basis of making a statement regarding a UPE? Should all conversations or little disagreements between editors cause one to tag the other a UPE editor. Just for the record, I have nothing to do with paid editing. I think it would have been nicer to ask why I reverted the statement and possibly, point out the line I skipped to source without going all out to imply a UPE. Previously, you brought my attention to an unsourced edit. I sincerely appreciated you for calling my attention to it, admitted that it was an “oversight” and didn’t even argue. Before that, I communicated that the information was gotten from a reliable YouTube Source which I forgot to add. But mentioning it here again (your previous message), despite the above stated fact is not a show of good faith. I have seen you make this mistake severally and admit to it. I can point it out to you if you want. One simple communication can go a very long way. I know we all have other things to attend to but it’s a lot better to seek clarification than make a false suggestion that can ruin someone else’s reputation and hard-work. It is very easy for someone else to run along with the wrong narrative you’ve tried to suggest. I really hate to argue but I think it’s really unfair to make such statements at the first shot on a particular case. Your previous text sounded more like it was personal than an act in good faith. I’m typing this much because I genuinely feel hurt that you went all the way to make wrong statements especially bringing in concluded/peaceful conversations. Very wrong.
- Regardless, thank you for your edits. Super appreciated.
- Best! Mevoelo (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- At this time, I’m supposed to chill out. It I won’t, sorry. And I’m also sorry you feel hurt but at the beginning of this thread, I said and I quote:
Hello,, I see you reverted my edit (here) and sourced the statements I had previously removed but the source failed to mention the other movies you cited with Breath of Life.
at the beginning of my sentence. Just be careful next time and happy editing! Best, Reading Beans 18:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- At this time, I’m supposed to chill out. It I won’t, sorry. And I’m also sorry you feel hurt but at the beginning of this thread, I said and I quote: